(no subject)
A youtube ad. Is this ai? It must be ai. It is so awful and stupid.
(no subject)
From a developer's feed, introduced as The review of "Melania" we all needed. The most interesting thing about this review is that the reviewer parodies her accent. As reviews go, I don't know: he can't talk about the film without instantly going off on a rant about how Trump is destroying the White House, or democracy, or something or other.
Not that I ever planned to watch that crap; but I am quite unimpressed by this review we all needed. I don't understand why that guy would go and watch the film, if he in advance already hated everything about it, guaranteeing that he would get a miserable experience out of it.
Not that I ever planned to watch that crap; but I am quite unimpressed by this review we all needed. I don't understand why that guy would go and watch the film, if he in advance already hated everything about it, guaranteeing that he would get a miserable experience out of it.
(no subject)
Language is such an odd thing...
A BBC article reporting from Belfast talks of "racist graffiti and anti-social behaviour". It repeats the phrase "anti-social behaviour" multiple times. The only time it explains what it means by the phrase is in the following sentence:
...the anti-social behaviour started in September with young people entering the apartment block and kicking residents' doors and shouting.
Clearly, "young people entering the apartment block and kicking residents' doors and shouting" is a social behavior — it is not performed by a single outcast from the society, but rather by a social group of young people, who are engaged in a tribal activity and probably tighten their in-group social bonds through it. The behavior is aggressive, offensive, thuggish, probably criminal — but why call it anti-social?
A BBC article reporting from Belfast talks of "racist graffiti and anti-social behaviour". It repeats the phrase "anti-social behaviour" multiple times. The only time it explains what it means by the phrase is in the following sentence:
...the anti-social behaviour started in September with young people entering the apartment block and kicking residents' doors and shouting.
Clearly, "young people entering the apartment block and kicking residents' doors and shouting" is a social behavior — it is not performed by a single outcast from the society, but rather by a social group of young people, who are engaged in a tribal activity and probably tighten their in-group social bonds through it. The behavior is aggressive, offensive, thuggish, probably criminal — but why call it anti-social?
(no subject)
Via a very circuitous route (someone posted a quote from Epstein files on social media) I learnt about the existence of this Russian lady; and when I looked her up on youtube to hear her accent, I was reminded of the feature that amuses / surprises me about some Russian speakers who pick up American English: it's how they emulate the very open American vowel in words that are written with 'o'. For example, she pronounces 'model' with something sounding like a /mʌ/, or /mɑː/ (example). Merriam-Webster's calls this phoneme /ä/.
I wonder whether they pick it up on their own by ear, or are specifically trained in this pronunciation at school or language courses. For instance, for this woman, this vowel sounds the strongest in words that have to do with modelling, which is her profession, so she must have heard them a lot. For me, that sound has always been a more closed rounded vowel, like the Russian /o/, which probably isn't even the British /ɒ/.
In fact, I only embarrassingly recently realised that phonetic charts of British English don't even have an /o/ in them (example).
I wonder whether they pick it up on their own by ear, or are specifically trained in this pronunciation at school or language courses. For instance, for this woman, this vowel sounds the strongest in words that have to do with modelling, which is her profession, so she must have heard them a lot. For me, that sound has always been a more closed rounded vowel, like the Russian /o/, which probably isn't even the British /ɒ/.
In fact, I only embarrassingly recently realised that phonetic charts of British English don't even have an /o/ in them (example).
(no subject)
OMG, is the impending AI doom also a 'left/right' issue?
(no subject)
A house marred by narcissism and unsupportive parental figures...
Do people talk like this? Or is this a quote from her book?
Do people talk like this? Or is this a quote from her book?
(no subject)
Overheard a joke:
"The fact that some people can't distinguish between entomology and etymology bugs me in a way I can't even put into words".
(If I didn't know it was supposed to be a joke, I would have taken the sentence at face value, and missed the fun.)
"The fact that some people can't distinguish between entomology and etymology bugs me in a way I can't even put into words".
(If I didn't know it was supposed to be a joke, I would have taken the sentence at face value, and missed the fun.)
(no subject)
The level of moral contortions in the text below is remarkable. The author is so conflicted; he wants to link to someone's wrtiteup of working with Claude Code, but ah, he is morally opposed to AI, and also also morally opposed to substack where that piece was published. But he liked the article. Hence a long and anguished preface to the link (or an apology about it):
========
FIRST, the disclaimers:
1. The article I’m about to link to is about working with AI. If you believe AI is a useless or dangerous invention (and I agree with you on the second point, which means I support the idea of regulating AI like any other public utility), you’ll have no interest in learning how to incorporate it into your product design practice. Skip the article and go with God.
2. The article is hosted on Substack.
Some of my favorite writers—folks who are as anti-fascist and pro-democracy as they come—publish on Substack, but I read and recommend their work less and less frequently, because Substack has a Nazi problem.
To wit:
Awkward: Substack’s Nazi Problem
Substack call themselves a platform rather than a publication, a classic web conundrum. But most other self-described platforms typically have terms and conditions banning dangerous or harmful speech, and an (overworked, underfunded) Trust & Safety team that removes the worst content published there.
Thus, its glory days, Twitter tried to ban the most toxic speech. They weren’t always successful, and a bunch of us did a lot of complaining about that, but they had great people on staff who worked hard to stem the worst abuses. X, in contrast, not only does not check bad speech, it actively promotes it, which is why many of us choose to post elsewhere.
Like X, Substack refuses to remove Nazi content from their platform, labeling it a free speech issue. Free speech sounds good, and is good in principle. And at least Substack, unlike X, does not deliberately amplify the worst speech it allows on its platform.
Ah, but but Substack takes a 10% cut of all subscriptions, including subscriptions to inflammatory, dangerous content, e.g. Nazi stuff.
Profiting from all speech, including atrocious speech, undermines Substack’s “neutral platform” argument, since profit incentivizes them to publish bad content that drives passionate subscriptions.
Some writers have left the platform in protest—and there are certainly other services that offer writers the same benefits without the Nazi problem.
On the other hand, migrating to a new platform can be difficult, and you can lose your audience in the process. Thus many writers who are not Nazis nevertheless remain on Substack and rationalize it.
And still other writers are unaware of the Substack problem. I suspect that that’s the case with the author whose article I’m about to link to.
The writer’s dilemma is also the reader’s.
If you feel okay reading non-Nazi stuff on a platform that profits from everything published on it (including Nazi stuff you’ll never see but which nevertheless contributes to the platform’s bottom line) … and if you already work with or are inexperienced but open-minded about AI (while also being aware of the societal dangers the technology poses), then this article may be for you.
Although I’m conflicted about it for the reasons above, I recommend the article Claude Code for Designers: A Practical Guide by Tommaso Nervegna as a relatable, informative, and useful hands-on guide to harnessing Claude Code and a handful of other tools to build not only functional prototypes and client demos but working websites and real web apps with users and databases.
TL;DR: A full-stack designer/developer who used to code rediscovers his superpower through Claude Code and Get Shit Done. The promise: no more translation layer between vision and implementation; just a direct path from Figma to production. How to get there if you wish to try doing the same: just follow the steps.
Read: Claude Code for Designers: A Practical Guide
========
(link)
========
FIRST, the disclaimers:
1. The article I’m about to link to is about working with AI. If you believe AI is a useless or dangerous invention (and I agree with you on the second point, which means I support the idea of regulating AI like any other public utility), you’ll have no interest in learning how to incorporate it into your product design practice. Skip the article and go with God.
2. The article is hosted on Substack.
Some of my favorite writers—folks who are as anti-fascist and pro-democracy as they come—publish on Substack, but I read and recommend their work less and less frequently, because Substack has a Nazi problem.
To wit:
Awkward: Substack’s Nazi Problem
Substack call themselves a platform rather than a publication, a classic web conundrum. But most other self-described platforms typically have terms and conditions banning dangerous or harmful speech, and an (overworked, underfunded) Trust & Safety team that removes the worst content published there.
Thus, its glory days, Twitter tried to ban the most toxic speech. They weren’t always successful, and a bunch of us did a lot of complaining about that, but they had great people on staff who worked hard to stem the worst abuses. X, in contrast, not only does not check bad speech, it actively promotes it, which is why many of us choose to post elsewhere.
Like X, Substack refuses to remove Nazi content from their platform, labeling it a free speech issue. Free speech sounds good, and is good in principle. And at least Substack, unlike X, does not deliberately amplify the worst speech it allows on its platform.
Ah, but but Substack takes a 10% cut of all subscriptions, including subscriptions to inflammatory, dangerous content, e.g. Nazi stuff.
Profiting from all speech, including atrocious speech, undermines Substack’s “neutral platform” argument, since profit incentivizes them to publish bad content that drives passionate subscriptions.
Some writers have left the platform in protest—and there are certainly other services that offer writers the same benefits without the Nazi problem.
On the other hand, migrating to a new platform can be difficult, and you can lose your audience in the process. Thus many writers who are not Nazis nevertheless remain on Substack and rationalize it.
And still other writers are unaware of the Substack problem. I suspect that that’s the case with the author whose article I’m about to link to.
The writer’s dilemma is also the reader’s.
If you feel okay reading non-Nazi stuff on a platform that profits from everything published on it (including Nazi stuff you’ll never see but which nevertheless contributes to the platform’s bottom line) … and if you already work with or are inexperienced but open-minded about AI (while also being aware of the societal dangers the technology poses), then this article may be for you.
Although I’m conflicted about it for the reasons above, I recommend the article Claude Code for Designers: A Practical Guide by Tommaso Nervegna as a relatable, informative, and useful hands-on guide to harnessing Claude Code and a handful of other tools to build not only functional prototypes and client demos but working websites and real web apps with users and databases.
TL;DR: A full-stack designer/developer who used to code rediscovers his superpower through Claude Code and Get Shit Done. The promise: no more translation layer between vision and implementation; just a direct path from Figma to production. How to get there if you wish to try doing the same: just follow the steps.
Read: Claude Code for Designers: A Practical Guide
========
(link)
(no subject)
A design agency advertising itself.
A couple things to note.
First, no-one seems to like juniors (or "non-seniors"). No matter what they say about how juniors are the future; how it is a responsible and ethical thing to do to give them work, it turns out that an agency's pitch is, 'we are all seniors here; no lousy junior is going to besmirch your project.'
Second, it's funny how they promise not to bother the customer with meetings or requests for approval, but at the same time, claim to do something that is 'iterative and efficient' and not a 'traditional waterfall process'. Now, if that iterative and efficient process is a way to say agile without using the word (isn't it funny how people no longer want to use the word?), then the idea of such iterations would be to get quick and timely feedback from the customer. How would this work if they also promise not to bother the customer?
A couple things to note.
First, no-one seems to like juniors (or "non-seniors"). No matter what they say about how juniors are the future; how it is a responsible and ethical thing to do to give them work, it turns out that an agency's pitch is, 'we are all seniors here; no lousy junior is going to besmirch your project.'
Second, it's funny how they promise not to bother the customer with meetings or requests for approval, but at the same time, claim to do something that is 'iterative and efficient' and not a 'traditional waterfall process'. Now, if that iterative and efficient process is a way to say agile without using the word (isn't it funny how people no longer want to use the word?), then the idea of such iterations would be to get quick and timely feedback from the customer. How would this work if they also promise not to bother the customer?
